September 2, 2025 • 11 mins
In this Briefing, Jon Decker discusses a federal appeals court ruling that puts President Trump’s tariff strategy under legal scrutiny, raising questions about trade deficits, national security, and the future of his economic agenda. The discussion examines Trump’s response, potential Supreme Court involvement, and the broader stakes for U.S. trade policy. The White House Briefing Room can be heard daily on the iHeartRadio App, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you find your podcasts.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Welcome to the White House Briefing Room for Tuesday, September
the second. I'm John Decker. We begin this day after
Labor Day, with the White House dealing with a major
legal challenge that could potentially impact President Trump's entire legislative
and economic agenda in his second term. On Friday, as
(00:24):
most of America was set to enjoy a three day
Labor Day holiday, a federal appeals court late in the
day ruled that most of President Trump's global tariffs are illegal.
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held
in a seven to four ruling that the law that
the president invoked when he granted his most expansive tariffs,
(00:49):
including his so called reciprocal tariffs, does not actually grant
him the power to impose those tariffs. The court said,
the core congressional power to impose taxes such as tariffs
is vested exclusively in the legislative branch by the Constitution. Tariffs,
(01:10):
the court said, are a core congressional power. Now that
appellate court has paused its ruling from taking effect until
the middle of next month, October fourteenth. That's in order
to give the Trump administration time to ask the US
Supreme Court to reverse their decision. Now, it's not surprising
(01:32):
that the President did not react well to that decision
by that federal appellate court. He reacted on social media
on Friday. He wrote, all tariffs are still in effect today.
A highly partisan appeals court incorrectly said that our tariffs
should be removed, but they know the United States of
(01:54):
America will win in the end. He wrote, if these
tariffs ever went away, it would be a total disaster
for the country. It would make us financially weak, and
we have to be strong. The USA, he wrote, will
never longer tolerate enormous trade deficits and unfair tariffs and
(02:14):
non tariff trade barriers imposed by other countries, friend or
foe that undermine our manufacturers, farmers, and everyone else. If
allowed to stand, the President wrote, this decision would literally
destroy the United States of America. Now, I've been following
this particular case very closely. I realize and I think
(02:38):
the President realizes it quite well. In addition to that
that this particular case could upend his entire agenda in
his second term, and in fact, over a month ago
in the Roosevelt Room, while the President was signing an
executive order. I asked the President about this particular case,
(03:00):
and the President did not have a good reaction to
my question, and I think it got under his skin
a little bit. Let's hear the question that I posed
the President in the Roosevelt Room and the answer that
he gave.
Speaker 2 (03:13):
The policy goes into effect tomorrow. Yeah, as you know,
the Federal of Teleport today heard oral arguments about whether
or not you had the authority to unilaterally impose those caraists.
Not going to get you to weigh in on the
legal arguments, but you weighing your decision to do that.
Your authority to do that based on the nineteen seventy
(03:33):
seven law has never been a vote before. Why did
you in vote?
Speaker 3 (03:37):
Well, we've been winning all along. Just say when I
asked you.
Speaker 2 (03:40):
Why didn't you invote this law in your first term?
You could have taken in billions upon billions of dollars
in your first term, but you waited into your second.
Speaker 3 (03:48):
Yeah, because in my first term, I was finding lunatics
like you who were trying to do things incorrectly and
inappropriately to a president that was duly elected. And we
did do certain tariffs in the first term. If you
look at China. China, we took in hundreds of billions
of dollars from China, but when COVID came, the last
thing I was going to do is tell France and
(04:09):
Italy and Spain and a couple of other countries that
we're going to hit you with tarris We had to
fight the COVID situation when that came. But if you
look at my first term, we took in hundreds of
billions of dollars worth of tariffs, but you people didn't
cover it very well.
Speaker 1 (04:26):
Now, in that answer, I don't mind being attacked personally.
It goes with the territory. In fact, just four days
prior to the President saying what he said in that response,
he called me very smart when he learned that I
went to the University of Pennsylvania just like he did.
But as it relates to the President's answer, the President said,
(04:47):
the reason why he didn't impose those tariffs in his
first term had to do with COVID and COVID of course,
the coronavirus pandemic did not occur until the final year,
year number four of the president's first term in office,
so certainly in years one, two, or three if he
(05:08):
felt that he had the authority to impose those so
called reciprocal tariffs, he certainly could have done so, but
he did not. He obviously felt that in this particular term.
In the second term, he feels he has the power,
he has the authority, and there are those around him,
including his legal counsel, who believe he has the constitutional
(05:31):
right to impose these tariffs. Besides the president's social media posts,
there was also a statement put out by the White
House Press Office. They write, the President's tariffs remain in effect,
and we look forward to ultimate victory on this matter.
And they're referring, obviously to the idea that an appeal
(05:52):
is almost guaranteed to the US Supreme Court. Now, at
the center of this dispute is the scope of a
national security based law which was enacted way back in
nineteen seventies. It's called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act,
and the law authorizes the president to regulate international commerce
(06:16):
after declaring a national emergency. But in Friday's ruling, that
of Pellicourt found that these tariffs which are being challenged,
exceeded the president's authority under that law. The majority rule
that both the trafficking tariffs, and the reciprocal tariffs are
unbounded in scope, amount, and duration. The court continued, these
(06:41):
tariffs apply to nearly all articles all goods imported into
the United States, and in the case of the reciprocal tariffs,
applied to almost all countries, impose high rates which are
ever changing and exceed those set out in the US
tariff system, and are not limited in duration. There were
four dissenters. They disagreed with the majority's conclusion on the
(07:05):
question of the tariff's legality. Now, in case you are wondering,
this appeals panel was a decision that was composed of
seven judges appointed by former Democratic presidents and four judges
appointed by Republican presidents. And just because a judge is
(07:26):
named to the bench by a Republican or named to
the bench by a Democrat, it doesn't necessarily mean that
they will support or oppose the president's actions. But in
this particular case, that's exactly what happened, and it makes
you wonder. It makes me wonder what will happen at
the US Supreme Court, where there is a super conservative
(07:49):
majority of six to three that exists. There are six
justices on the US Supreme Court that were named to
the bench by Republican presidents, three justices on the Supreme
Court that were named to the nation's highest court by
democratic presidents, and the president. President Trump feels very confident
(08:12):
that the Supreme Court will ultimately side with him on
this particular issue. Now when this case comes before the
US Supreme Court, and I do mean when, because it
certainly will. The arguments that the Supreme Court will make
on both the liberal side and the conservative side will
(08:32):
likely mirror some of the same arguments that were made
in the lower courts. During the arguments before the appeals panel,
the lawyers on both sides argued over whether the President's
declared national emergency met this law's requirements of unusual and extraordinary.
(08:54):
One of those judges agreed with the President that this
did meet the requirements by identify find underlying causes contributing
to the threat, including trade deficits, But another judge, a
judge and the majority countered, how can a trade deficit
be extraordinary and unusual when we've had trade deficits for
(09:17):
decades now. The decision by this Appella court came just
hours after President Trump's top trade negotiators urged the judges
to consider what they called supplemental developments in the case,
including an assessment from the Congressional Budget Office that tariffs
will reduce US deficits by four trillion dollars over the
(09:38):
next decade. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnik was one of those
who made those supplemental statements to the Appella court. He
said that striking down the tariffs that the President imposed
under this law would cause massive and irreparable harm to
the United States and its foreign policy and national security,
(09:59):
both now and in the future. So that's what's at
stake for President Trump. That's what's at stake for the president.
As this case likely will be decided by the US
Supreme Court on Tuesday, the President has one event. He
is going to be making an announcement, an announcement that
I believe will have to do with relocating the headquarters
(10:22):
of Space Force Command from Colorado Springs to Huntsville, Alabama.
And that will certainly please the Congressional delegation in Alabama,
who will likely be there when the President makes this
announcement in the Oval Office. I will also be there
in the Oval Office on Tuesday. I am in the pool,
(10:43):
so I will get an opportunity to ask the President
questions not only related to the president's announcement that he's making,
but also about the news that we just heard about,
the news regarding this appellate court decision that could imperil
the president's economic and legislative agenda for his entire second term.
(11:07):
So that's what I look forward to on Tuesday, that
opportunity to ask the President questions and hopefully get some
answers from the President during that time. That's it for
the White House Briefing Room for Tuesday, September second. I'm
John Decker. Have a good one.
Welcome to the White House Briefing Room for Tuesday, September
the second. I'm John Decker. We begin this day after
Labor Day, with the White House dealing with a major
legal challenge that could potentially impact President Trump's entire legislative
and economic agenda in his second term. On Friday, as
(00:24):
most of America was set to enjoy a three day
Labor Day holiday, a federal appeals court late in the
day ruled that most of President Trump's global tariffs are illegal.
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held
in a seven to four ruling that the law that
the president invoked when he granted his most expansive tariffs,
(00:49):
including his so called reciprocal tariffs, does not actually grant
him the power to impose those tariffs. The court said,
the core congressional power to impose taxes such as tariffs
is vested exclusively in the legislative branch by the Constitution. Tariffs,
(01:10):
the court said, are a core congressional power. Now that
appellate court has paused its ruling from taking effect until
the middle of next month, October fourteenth. That's in order
to give the Trump administration time to ask the US
Supreme Court to reverse their decision. Now, it's not surprising
(01:32):
that the President did not react well to that decision
by that federal appellate court. He reacted on social media
on Friday. He wrote, all tariffs are still in effect today.
A highly partisan appeals court incorrectly said that our tariffs
should be removed, but they know the United States of
(01:54):
America will win in the end. He wrote, if these
tariffs ever went away, it would be a total disaster
for the country. It would make us financially weak, and
we have to be strong. The USA, he wrote, will
never longer tolerate enormous trade deficits and unfair tariffs and
(02:14):
non tariff trade barriers imposed by other countries, friend or
foe that undermine our manufacturers, farmers, and everyone else. If
allowed to stand, the President wrote, this decision would literally
destroy the United States of America. Now, I've been following
this particular case very closely. I realize and I think
(02:38):
the President realizes it quite well. In addition to that
that this particular case could upend his entire agenda in
his second term, and in fact, over a month ago
in the Roosevelt Room, while the President was signing an
executive order. I asked the President about this particular case,
(03:00):
and the President did not have a good reaction to
my question, and I think it got under his skin
a little bit. Let's hear the question that I posed
the President in the Roosevelt Room and the answer that
he gave.
Speaker 2 (03:13):
The policy goes into effect tomorrow. Yeah, as you know,
the Federal of Teleport today heard oral arguments about whether
or not you had the authority to unilaterally impose those caraists.
Not going to get you to weigh in on the
legal arguments, but you weighing your decision to do that.
Your authority to do that based on the nineteen seventy
(03:33):
seven law has never been a vote before. Why did
you in vote?
Speaker 3 (03:37):
Well, we've been winning all along. Just say when I
asked you.
Speaker 2 (03:40):
Why didn't you invote this law in your first term?
You could have taken in billions upon billions of dollars
in your first term, but you waited into your second.
Speaker 3 (03:48):
Yeah, because in my first term, I was finding lunatics
like you who were trying to do things incorrectly and
inappropriately to a president that was duly elected. And we
did do certain tariffs in the first term. If you
look at China. China, we took in hundreds of billions
of dollars from China, but when COVID came, the last
thing I was going to do is tell France and
(04:09):
Italy and Spain and a couple of other countries that
we're going to hit you with tarris We had to
fight the COVID situation when that came. But if you
look at my first term, we took in hundreds of
billions of dollars worth of tariffs, but you people didn't
cover it very well.
Speaker 1 (04:26):
Now, in that answer, I don't mind being attacked personally.
It goes with the territory. In fact, just four days
prior to the President saying what he said in that response,
he called me very smart when he learned that I
went to the University of Pennsylvania just like he did.
But as it relates to the President's answer, the President said,
(04:47):
the reason why he didn't impose those tariffs in his
first term had to do with COVID and COVID of course,
the coronavirus pandemic did not occur until the final year,
year number four of the president's first term in office,
so certainly in years one, two, or three if he
(05:08):
felt that he had the authority to impose those so
called reciprocal tariffs, he certainly could have done so, but
he did not. He obviously felt that in this particular term.
In the second term, he feels he has the power,
he has the authority, and there are those around him,
including his legal counsel, who believe he has the constitutional
(05:31):
right to impose these tariffs. Besides the president's social media posts,
there was also a statement put out by the White
House Press Office. They write, the President's tariffs remain in effect,
and we look forward to ultimate victory on this matter.
And they're referring, obviously to the idea that an appeal
(05:52):
is almost guaranteed to the US Supreme Court. Now, at
the center of this dispute is the scope of a
national security based law which was enacted way back in
nineteen seventies. It's called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act,
and the law authorizes the president to regulate international commerce
(06:16):
after declaring a national emergency. But in Friday's ruling, that
of Pellicourt found that these tariffs which are being challenged,
exceeded the president's authority under that law. The majority rule
that both the trafficking tariffs, and the reciprocal tariffs are
unbounded in scope, amount, and duration. The court continued, these
(06:41):
tariffs apply to nearly all articles all goods imported into
the United States, and in the case of the reciprocal tariffs,
applied to almost all countries, impose high rates which are
ever changing and exceed those set out in the US
tariff system, and are not limited in duration. There were
four dissenters. They disagreed with the majority's conclusion on the
(07:05):
question of the tariff's legality. Now, in case you are wondering,
this appeals panel was a decision that was composed of
seven judges appointed by former Democratic presidents and four judges
appointed by Republican presidents. And just because a judge is
(07:26):
named to the bench by a Republican or named to
the bench by a Democrat, it doesn't necessarily mean that
they will support or oppose the president's actions. But in
this particular case, that's exactly what happened, and it makes
you wonder. It makes me wonder what will happen at
the US Supreme Court, where there is a super conservative
(07:49):
majority of six to three that exists. There are six
justices on the US Supreme Court that were named to
the bench by Republican presidents, three justices on the Supreme
Court that were named to the nation's highest court by
democratic presidents, and the president. President Trump feels very confident
(08:12):
that the Supreme Court will ultimately side with him on
this particular issue. Now when this case comes before the
US Supreme Court, and I do mean when, because it
certainly will. The arguments that the Supreme Court will make
on both the liberal side and the conservative side will
(08:32):
likely mirror some of the same arguments that were made
in the lower courts. During the arguments before the appeals panel,
the lawyers on both sides argued over whether the President's
declared national emergency met this law's requirements of unusual and extraordinary.
(08:54):
One of those judges agreed with the President that this
did meet the requirements by identify find underlying causes contributing
to the threat, including trade deficits, But another judge, a
judge and the majority countered, how can a trade deficit
be extraordinary and unusual when we've had trade deficits for
(09:17):
decades now. The decision by this Appella court came just
hours after President Trump's top trade negotiators urged the judges
to consider what they called supplemental developments in the case,
including an assessment from the Congressional Budget Office that tariffs
will reduce US deficits by four trillion dollars over the
(09:38):
next decade. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnik was one of those
who made those supplemental statements to the Appella court. He
said that striking down the tariffs that the President imposed
under this law would cause massive and irreparable harm to
the United States and its foreign policy and national security,
(09:59):
both now and in the future. So that's what's at
stake for President Trump. That's what's at stake for the president.
As this case likely will be decided by the US
Supreme Court on Tuesday, the President has one event. He
is going to be making an announcement, an announcement that
I believe will have to do with relocating the headquarters
(10:22):
of Space Force Command from Colorado Springs to Huntsville, Alabama.
And that will certainly please the Congressional delegation in Alabama,
who will likely be there when the President makes this
announcement in the Oval Office. I will also be there
in the Oval Office on Tuesday. I am in the pool,
(10:43):
so I will get an opportunity to ask the President
questions not only related to the president's announcement that he's making,
but also about the news that we just heard about,
the news regarding this appellate court decision that could imperil
the president's economic and legislative agenda for his entire second term.
(11:07):
So that's what I look forward to on Tuesday, that
opportunity to ask the President questions and hopefully get some
answers from the President during that time. That's it for
the White House Briefing Room for Tuesday, September second. I'm
John Decker. Have a good one.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal
Gregg Rosenthal and a rotating crew of elite NFL Media co-hosts, including Patrick Claybon, Colleen Wolfe, Steve Wyche, Nick Shook and Jourdan Rodrigue of The Athletic get you caught up daily on all the NFL news and analysis you need to be smarter and funnier than your friends.